HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/2010 19 Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan Adoption BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
For Meeting of March 23, 2010
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Adopting the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste
Management Plan, January 2010
SUBMITTED BY: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
• Nancy Fortier, Refuse and Recycling Manager
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Nancy Fortier, 576 -6421
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Yakima County Public Services, Solid Waste Division has requested that the Yakima City Council adopt
the attached Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan Update, dated January
2010.
During the environmental review process, four comments were received regarding the plan. A copy of
0. the comments and the proposed revisions prepared by the County consultant, URS are attached.
The attached Resolution authorizes the City Manager to implement the Yakima County Solid and
Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan. At the earliest opportunity, the Yakima County Solid Waste
Plan should be included in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan by reference and a summary
of the capital facilities added to the Capital Facilities Element.
Resolution X Ordinance Contract Other (Specify) Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk
Waste Management Plan
Funding Source
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: ----�
e � Cit Manager
er 9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully requests City Council approve the Resolution to adopt
the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, dated January 2010.
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
!II
III RESOLUTION NO. R -2010-
A RESOLUTION adopting the Yakima County Solid, and Moderate Risk Waste
Management Plan Update, dated January 2010.
WHEREAS, RCW 70.95.080 and RCW 70.105 require Yakima County, in cooperation
with various cities located within the County, to prepare a coordinated comprehensive solid
waste management plan and provide a local Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2003, the Yakima City Council adopted a resolution
authorizing an agreement whereby Yakima County, on behalf of the City of Yakima, was
designated to develop a solid waste management plan for integrated solid waste management;
and,
WHEREAS, the Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory Committee recommends
adoption of the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan Update,
dated January 2010; and,
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Ecology reviewed the draft Yakima
• County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan and provided comments; and
funding for Plan implementation has been approved by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation; and,
WHEREAS, the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
has been reviewed as a non - project action under SEPA and a Determination of Non-
Significance was issued on January 25, 2010; and,
WHEREAS, at the earliest opportunity, the Yakima County Solid Waste Plan Update,
dated January 2010, should be included in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan by
reference and a summary of the capital facilities added to the Capital Facilities Element; and,
WHEREAS, the adopted Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management
Plan Update, dated January 2010, will be submitted to the Washington state Department of
Ecology for final approval; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yakima deems it to be in the best interest
of the City of Yakima to adopt the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste
Management Plan Update, dated January 2010, now, therefore,
ill ,
Resolution for 2010 County Solid Waste Mgmt Plan.rtf 1
•
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
The 2010 Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan is
hereby approved and adopted as the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste
Management Plan, January 2010, and the City Manager of the City of Yakima is hereby
•
authorized and directed to implement the attached and incorporated "Yakima County Solid
and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan Update, dated January 2010."
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of March 2010.
Micah Cawley, Mayor
A'1" VEST:
Debbie Kloster, City Clerk
i
Resolution for 2010 County Solid Waste Mgmt Plan.rtf 2
• WEEKLY ISSUES
March 4, 2010
•
TO: City Manager, Dick Zais
Members of the Yakima City Council
FROM: Nancy Fortier, Refuse and Recycling Manager
SUBJECT: Information Relating to Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement with
Yakima County
On April 15, 2003, the Yakima City Council approved a Resolution Authorizing Execution of a
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement with Yakima County. The Interlocal Agreement designates
Yakima County to prepare a Solid Waste Management Plan on behalf of the City of Yakima.
Chapter 70.95 RCW, requires counties within the state, in cooperation with various cities located
within the County to prepare a coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management plan. It has
historically been Council policy to authorize Yakima County to prepare the plan for the city's
• solid waste management for inclusion in the comprehensive county plan. The current Interlocal
Agreement will remain in effect for 20 years, until April 15, 2023.
Council Member Bill Lover has been participating as a voting member of the Yakima County
Solid Waste Management Committee (SWAC) in developing the Solid Waste Management Plan.
The final 2010 Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan will be
coming before the Yakima City Council for adoption in the near future.
•
•
DATE: January 8, 2010 •
TO: Yakima County SWAC Members
FROM: Terrill Chang and Rick Hlavka
RE: Comments and Proposed Revisions for the Solid Waste Plan
The purpose of this memo is to identify the comments received on the Preliminary Draft of the Yakima
County Solid and Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan (Plan), and to propose revisions that can be
made in response to those comments. If the SWAC members concur with the proposed revisions, the
revisions will be incorporated into the Plan. These revisions will convert the Preliminary Draft into the
Final Draft. After the Final Draft is adopted, the resolutions of adoption must be inserted into Appendix
C and then the plan can be submitted to Ecology for final approval. Only after final approval from
Ecology has been granted (or if they fail to act within 45 days) does the plan become effective and the
planning process comes to an end.
Comments were received from four sources: the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(WUTC), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Yakama Nation, and the Dept. of Ecology. These comments
are addressed below in the order that they were received.
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE WUTC'
The WUTC's comments state that their analysis concludes that there will be a slight increase in garbage •
g g g.
service costs due to the recommendations of the solid waste plan. For residential customers, their
analysis concludes that costs could increase by less. than $3.00 per year The•WUTC general comments
relate to .terminology, as discussed below.
A. General Comments: WUTC staff noted that solid waste collection companies are erroneously
referred to as "franchise haulers" throughout the Plan, and that those references should be changed to
"certificated" instead.
Discussion: The tern "franchise" shows up in several spots throughout the Plan, but some of those
refer to a city's authority to establish a franchise (which is the correct use of the tern as defined by
the WUTC). In another place it is part of a direct quotation of state law, which we cannot change.
There are only a few places where the terrn is used incorrectly.
Recommendation: Change "franchise" to "certificated" in approximately four or five locations in the
Plan.
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE YAKAMA NATION and BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS
The comments from the Yakarna Nation and Bureau of Indian Affairs are similar and are being addressed
at the same time. For reference, the discussion will use the letter from the Yakarna Nation (dated
December 21, 2009, see attached).
111111
1 of 5 URS
S B. Comment #1 from the Yakama Nation: This comment notes that expenditures outlined in the Plan
will exceed $12,000,000 over a six -year period for new projects and questions the lack Of information
about the impacts of those developments.
Discussion: First, the SEPA process fora solid waste plan is considered to be a "non- project action."
Identifying a proposed development project in a solid waste plan does not eliminate the need to
undergo permitting and the SEPA process for that project in the future when it is actually being
planned and designed. In this case, part of the $12,000,000 is for various operational activities and
studies that do not need to be addressed by a SEPA process, but most of this amount is for two capital
improvement projects that will each require a project - specific SEPA process: a self -haul site at
Cheyne Landfill and the expansion of the transfer station at Terrace Heights. Those SEPA processes
will be conducted separately for these projects at a. later date as part of the permitting process.
Insufficient details are available at this time to adequately address the potential impacts of these two •
projects. The referenced estimated amount was used to indicate the magnitude of future capital
expense.
Recommendation: No changes are proposed to the SEPA checklist or the Plan in response to this
comment.
C— Comment - #2- from- the- Y- akama- Nation =The Yakama Nation' -s =next- comment - disagrees with- -the - - - -- _
characterization of the recommendations of the Plan as "refinements to current solid waste practices"
and states that they feel that the plan proposes several substantial changes. They cite the designation
of Cheyne Landfill as a "regional landfill" as an example of substantial change.
III
Discussion: The statement that there will not be a significant change in waste management practices
is correct within the context of environmental impacts.. Although there will be a shift in the future
from Terrace Heights Landfill to Cheyne Landfill as the primary disposal site, the waste disposal
system will continue to use local landfills as the primary disposal method. Current haulers using
Terrace Heights Landfill will: continue to use Terrace Heights and current haulers utilizing Cheyne
Landfill will continue to use Cheyne Landfill Only if the Plan proposed changing from landfill
disposal to a radically different disposal method (such as waste incineration or composting), would
the Plan itself be considered to be making a significant change in terms of potential environmental
impacts.
It should also be noted that Cheyne Landfill is not considered to be a "regional" landfill. Although
there is no precise regulatory definition of what makes a landfill "regional," the Cheyne Landfill is
currently only used for local wastes.
Recommendation: No changes are proposed to the SEPA checklist or the Plan in response to this
comment.
D. Comments 113 through #8 from the Yakama Nation: The next six,conunents from. the Yakama Nation
appear to only address possible impacts from the expansion of the Cheyne Landfill.
Discussion: All of these .issues have already been addressed by the SEPA process conducted in 2008
for the permitted expansion of the Cheyne Landfill and are not within the scope of the SEPA process
for the solid waste plan.
0 . .
Recommendation: No changes are proposed to the SEPA checklist P s or the Plan in response to these
comments.
2 of 5 URS
E. Comment #9 from the Yakama Nation: The Yakama Nation's final comment notes that they are a
party of interest in the County's waste management system, but that they have been excluded from
active participation in the solid waste advisory committee.
Discussion: Representatives of the Yakama Nation have participated in the planning process as a
member of the public and their comments during the process have been welcomed and addressed as
appropriate. As has been previously discussed by Yakama Nation and Yakima County, formal
membership on the SWAC would require some form of written agreement between the two parties.
Unfortunately, that has been difficult to accomplish.
Recommendation: No changes are proposed to the SEPA checklist or the Plan in response to this
comment.
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM ECOLOGY •
Ecology's comments on the Preliminary Draft plan fall into three categories (see also the attached copy
of their letter):
1. Procedural items that must be addressed prior to plan approval.
2. Other items that must be addressed prior to plan approval.
3. Other comments (non- mandatory recommendations).
These comments can be summarized and addressed as follows.
Procedural Items from Ecology's Comments:
F. Resolutions of Adoption: Ecology's first comment is "Yakima County and the cities with interlocal
agreements need to approve the updated comprehensive solid waste management plan prior to
Ecology's approval of the final draft. Please include a statement assuring that the plan acceptance •
process outlined in the interlocal agreement has been fulfilled."
• Discussion: This will be addressed in the final copy of the Plan.
Recommendation: The final Plan will contain a statement that the adoption process has been satisfied.
Copies of adoptions by each respective party will be included as an attachment to the Plan.
G. Approval of Local Hazardous Waste Plan: Ecology's next comment notes that the approval request
for the final plan should specifically mention both the solid waste and moderate risk waste
management plans.
•
Discussion: This is per standard plan approval procedures.
Recommendation: This will be done when the final Plan is submitted to Ecology for final approval.
i
3 of 5 URS
• Other Required Items from Ecology's Comments:
H. SEPA Process: Ecology's next comment notes that the plan must comply with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and that evidence of that compliance should be included in the
final plan:
Discussion: This is per standard procedures.
Recommendation: The SEPA checklist is already included in the Plan (see Appendix H), and the final
Plan should include the signature page for the SEPA checklist and the results of the SEPA process
(such as a DNS or mitigated DNS).
•
I. Include Copies of Local Ordinances: Ecology next continent states that copies of local ordinances
should be included in the plan.
Discussion: There are several problems with this request, not the least of which is the waste of
resources (paper) that this represents. A. larger problem is that the Plan cannot be viewed as the best
source of current information about ordinances. Any future changes in ordinances would require
updating the Plan, creating confusion and requiring additional expenditure of time and money.
Recommendation: No changes are proposed to the Plan in response to this comment.
Other (Non- Mandatory) Items from Ecology's Comments:
•
J. G- Certificates and City Contracts Ecology's next comment states that copies of G- certificates and
city contracts should be included in the plan.
Discussion: Again, this would lead to a waste of resources and potentially cause problems in the
future when changes are made to the certificates and contracts
Recommendation: No revisions are necessary in response to this comment.
K. WUTC Comments: Ecology notes that the WIJTC's comment should be incorporated.
Discussion: As previously noted in this memo (see item A), a few of the references to "franchise"
haulers should be changed to "certificated.",
Recommendation: Change "franchise" to "certificated" in approximately four to five locations in the
Plan. .
L. Anaerobic Digester Regulations: Ecology's` next comments requests that a reference be added to the
plan noting that a recent change in state law exempts anaerobic digesters from solid waste permit
requirements. .
Discussion: We agree that this is a significant change and that it could be added to the summary of
relevant state laws.
III Recommendation: A brief description of the new law should be added to Section 1.13 of the plan.
4 of 5 URS
M.Yard Debris Disposal Ban: Ecology's final comment notes that the language in RCW 70.95.010(10)
•
doesn't require that yard debris be banned from landfill disposal, only that elimination of yard debris
from landfills is a goal of the state.
Discussion: We thought that all such references had already been cleaned up but will clarify this
point as appropriate.
Recommendation: Slight revisions should be made in a few places in the Plan to avoid the
implication that there is intended to be a statewide disposal ban for yard debris.
This concludes all of the comments received on the Preliminary Draft of the Yakima County Solid and
Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan.
•
•
•
5 of 5 URS
k . Vii
•t • . 1 • -i . ' Vie +' .
, NI
/
0
'' / ', .:�i'•
f %!�
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
15 VWW Yakima Ave, Ste 200 O Yakima, WA 98902 -3452 m (509) 575 -2490
December 22, 2009
Yakima County Public Works
Ms. Wendy Mifflin, Manager
Solid Waste Division
7151 Roza Hill Drive -
Yakima, WA 9890]
RE: Review of the Preliminary Draft Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan,
October 2009
Dear Ms. Mifflin:
On November 3, 2009, Ecology received formal submittal of the Preliminary Draft Yakima County Solid and
Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, October 2009 and a request for preliminary review. Per the statutory
requirements of Chapter 70.95 RCW, and under the " WDOE 90-11 Guidelines for the Development of Local
olid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions (WDOE 90 -11 Guidelines), I have conducted a preliminary
review of the Plan.
I would like to commend the efforts of the County, the SWAC and all other involved parties in getting the Plan
to this point. During this planning effort all involved parties have stayed focused: on producing a workable,
usable document. We are confident this document will guide the County in making the tough decisions it will
face in the future in the solid waste arena. .
The attached comments are categorized in two ways. The comments under the first two headings must be
addressed prior to Plan approval The comments under the thirdheading, "General Comments" are not required
to be addressed prior to Plan approval. However, Ecology feels that addressing these issues will help clarify the
plan. Ecology has focused its comments on substantive issues and has not addressed editing details in this
review.
I look forward to working with your staff towards final approval of this plan. If you have any questions please
call me at 509-454-7863.
Sincerely, .
Christopher M. Piercy`
Solid Waste Planner
•nclosure
2009 Yakima County Draft Solid Waste Management Plan 4110
Preliminary Review Comments
Reviewer: Christopher M. Piercy
Solid Waste Planner, CRO
December 22, 2009
Ecology's review comments are provided to assist Yakima County in the development of
a comprehensive, approvable, and useful solid waste management plan. The goals of the
planning process include reducing the total amount of solid waste produced through
waste reduction and recycling, and achieving compliance with state and local
environmental regulations.
The task of comprehensive plan development is not an easy assignment considering the
multitude of responsibilities confronting the. Yakima County Public Services Department.
Ecology recognizes the tremendous effort in developing and updating the comprehensive
solid waste management plan: The Plan presented to Ecology has gone through a
- thorough review by S Yakima County - Cities, - haulers; the - public and - other - - — _ -
interested parties in the County. The Plan has endured a long road to this release, and the
thought and effort to get the plan to this point should be appreciated by all parties who
have participated in its development. This Plan should provide Yakima County with the •
tools necessary to run an efficient and effective solid waste handling system over the
coming years.
In November, 2004 Ecology issued the State Solid and Hazardous Waste Plan, known as
the "Beyond Waste Plan". Some of the new initiatives outlined in your plan are
initiatives discussed in the Beyond Waste Plan. I would encourage you to review the
Beyond Waste Plan for guidance as you implement your plan, and look to Ecology for
assistance in the development of your new programs.
PROCEDURAL ITEMS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO PLAN
APPROVAL
Resolutions of Adoption: Yakima' County and the cities with interlocal agreements need
to approve the updated comprehensive solid waste management plan prior to Ecology's
approval of the final draft. Please include a statement assuring that the plan acceptance
process outlined in the interlocal agreement and /or the plan has been fulfilled.
Approval of the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan:. When requesting final
approval of the Yakima County Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, be sure to
request approval of both plans under their respective statutes:
r
Ms. Wendy Mifflin
December 22, 2009
0 Page2of3
ITEMS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO PLAN APPROVAL
The final plan must comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA):
Complete and final SEPA documentation must be incorporated into the locally - adopted
plan prior to Ecology granting final plan approval.
Relevant local ordinances should be included in the plan: Any local ordinances
(county or city) that pertain to the collection, handling, or disposal of solid waste should
be included in the plan. The most efficient method for doing this would be to include the
ordinances as an appendix to the plan. This element is essential to provide context for the
surveillance and control element and provide a reference for the occasions where local
policy is referenced in the plan. Any future ordinances (such as a flow control ordinance)
should also be included in' the plan as they are developed
Note: Yakima County opted for an informal Ecology review prior to this formal
submittal. All required elements were addressed iri that review and the current draft
meets all of the required elements`as described in Chapter 70.95 RCW, except as listed
above.
• OTHER COMMENTS
G- certificates and city hauling contracts: Ecology recommends including copies of the
WUTC- issued G- certificates for Yakima County and city hauling contracts for
participating jurisdictions as an appendix to the plan:-
Regulatory consistency and terminology In order to remain consistent with the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission's (WUTC) preferred terminology,
the plan's references to "franchise haulers" and "franchise" should be changed to
"certificated" or "certificate" as appropriate. See WUTC Secretary David W. Danner's
letter to Yakima County Public Works, dated December 10, 2009 for more details.
Anaerobic digester regulations: In 2009, the Washington State Legislature passed
Substitute Senate Bill 5797 (RCW .70.95.330) Exemption. from Solid Waste Handling
Permit Requirements for Anaerobic Digesters: The bill provides criteria for exempting
certain anaerobic digesters from obtaining a solid waste handling permit. Since there are
operating digesters) in .Yakima County, this addition to 70.95 RCW is significant, and
should be mentioned'in section .1.13 Sump ar y of f Recent Changes in Solid Waste
Regulation and Policy.
Possible local ban on yard debris: There are a few references in the plan regarding
language in RCW 70.95.010(10): The statute states that, "1t' is the state's goal that
programs be established to eliminate residential and commercial yard debris in landfills
fp by 2012 in those areas where alternatives to disposal are readily available and
. effective." Some of the language in the plan implies that this is a statewide ban on yard
Ms. Wendy Mifflin
December 22, 2009
Page 3 of 3
debris disposal in landfills. This statement is a goal similar to the state recycling rate
goal of 50% by 2007. Ecology applauds Yakima County's ambition for considering such
a ban, but it should be made very clear that this is not a legislatively- imposed mandate on
the County. If necessary, refer to the statutory language when referencing a ban on the
disposal of yard debris.
•
1110
, S
o f ii t i::
.41::::. x
gill( t �t
‘P1 1bR:A�
DEC 1 0 2009
STATE OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1300 S. Evergreen Park Dr. S.W., P.O. Box 47250 a Olympia, Washington 98504 -7250
(360) 664 -1160 0 TTY (360) 586 -8203
December 10, 2009 E
Yakima County Public Works ®�C . � . 5 2009
Ms. Wendy Mifflin, Manager Yakima Co Solid
Solid Waste Division Waste
7151 Roza Hill Drive
Yakima, WA 98901
RE: Comments on the Preliminary Draft of Yakima County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan (TG-091750)
Dear_ Ms._M ifflin:
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (commission) has completed its
review of the preliminary draft of the Yalcima County's Comprehensive Solid Waste
• Management Plan Update (Plan).
Commission staff's analysis of the Cost Assessment portion of the Plan shows financial impact
to ratepayers served by regulated solid waste collection companies in Yakima County. The Plan
calls for tip fee increases during the five years the Plan is in effect. Residential customers could
see increases of up to $.24 per month between the years 2013 - 2020. Commercial customers
could see an increase of up to $.60, per yard, based on the projected tip fee increases.
Please see staff's comments on the Plan, which are attached. Questions or comments should be
directed to Penny Ingram at (360) 664 -1242 or pinararnwutc.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
4, Ci 4,.. dr .............,.
David W. Danner
Executive Director and Secretary
cc: James Wavada, Department of Ecology, Eastern Regional Office
Attachment
III
_4,,
a,c,,,,,,., lb
•
DOCKET TG- 091750 PAGE 2.
ATTACHMENT: COMMISSION STAFF'S COMMENTS ON YAKIMA COUNTY'S e
COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
General comments: •
•
Throughout the Plan, solid waste collection companies are referred to as "franchise haulers."
The commission issues Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity to regulated solid
waste collection companies. The word "franchise" has a different meaning within the
regulatory environment and can cause confusion when it is used to refer to a solid waste
collection company regulated by the commission.
In the context of solid waste regulation in the State, the term " franchise" refers to when a
city, town or municipality contracts for solid waste collection service within its . jurisdiction
and therefore is exempt from commission regulation (see RCW 81.77.020) or when a city
issues a 'franchise" for large trucks to drive on the roads. Please change all references from
"franchise" to "certificate" or "certificated ", as applicable, respective to solid waste •
collection companies regulated by the UTC.
„ .
•
•
•
•
•
, . , ,
•. •
. ,
•
•
•
•
• •
•
• .
• ..
•
i
DLL 12: YHK1MH UUUNIY HULIbEKV
• . (---. 1 D107 Dr4 ee.si r.ue/ut,
United States Department of the Interior () 9 t
r 9. ...No „, k',
R 1, Bureau of Indian Affairs
. , Yakarna Agency U),i -,41-7 ""N i 7i0N
!:. g P.O. )3ox 632 TAKE PRIDE
-......... Toppenish, W 98948 INAMERtICA
' 3,1' Public
4/7 December 21, 2009 Z009
Yakima County Public Services
Planning Division
Mr. Steven M. Erickson
128 N 2 Street, 4 Floor Courthouse
Yakima, WA 98901
RE: PRJ 2009-01206 & SEP 2009-00041- Update Yakima County Long Range Plans for
Solid & Moderate Risk Wastes
_ Dear Mr: Erickson:
Per your Notice of Environmental Review -- Determinatiotruf _
• 'Update of Yaldma County Long Range Plan for Solid & Moderate Waste has been received
vvitia concerns and comments as stated below for your consideration. Please let me remind
you that 1 am bound to view this matter In the context of the sovereign nation status of the
Yakama Nation.
In review of your notice, the Yakama Nation has relayed valid concerns regarding the
proposed updated plan for the solid and moderate risk Wastes (see below).
• The Yakama Nation has the concerns with considerations given to the direct and
indirect impacts to the environment with regards to project developments.
• Refinements to the solid waste practices. The Yakama Nation has concerns the
changes are substantial to the solid waste practices and the cumulative impacts were
dismissed on the notice as non applicable.
• Cheyne Landfill as being a regional landfill for the Yakima County. The Yakama
Nation has concerns on the safeguards to accommodate the tonnage fr011t 35,000 ton
per year to 300,000 tons a year. Another concern is the increased traffic and
infrastructure durability to sustain the larger volumes of waste being hauled over the
• current bridges.
• The Yakama Nation has the concern of Cheyne Landfill being unlined with regards to
environmental precautions: .
• Historic and Cultural Preservation. The Yakama Nation has the concern of the
cultural resource assessment forthe Cheyne expansion. As you are aware the Cheyne
Landfill is off the reservation but within the ceded area of the'Yakama Nation.
• Yakima County Solid Waste Advisor); C'ornmittee. The Yakama .Nation has the concern
0 of being excluded as an active participant
— -- ---
DEC -30 -2009 12:50 YAKIMA COUNTY PUBSERV 1 509 574 2231 P.03i06
In conclusion, I would support further participation by the Yakima County for more open
Nation. Our Agency is thankful for the opportunity to
communication with the Yakama have any further questions please call to the
comment on the SEPA document. If you Y
attention of Rocco Clark, Environmental Coordinator, at 509 - 865 - 5121., extension 4195.
Sincerely,
Superintendent
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ _ _ _
•
.•
DEC -30 -2009 12: 50 YHK i riR CUUN I Y 1 1 Bey r4 ee.:3 1 r . u4/ tob
.A -* Esfablished by the
' + , " Confederated, Tribes and Bands
0 11 (4. AW All.1
,-, Treaty of June 9, 1855
1
/' �� {, . of the Yakarna Nation
11'ACA 11TO„
* WAVY Of
4./ 4 t
Public Servicee ( \if#:\(
December 21, 2009. DEC 2 8 2009
'Yakima County Planning Division YNSe...«G4ry1W..�.Dcn1.1{tave_ _ -..
128 N 2nd Street DiYL�>wl�h.q�RHp ,
4 Floor Courthouse
Yakima, WA 98901 -
Atten: Stevens Erickson, Planning Official/SEPA Responsible Official
Re: NU 2009 -01296 & SEP 2009- 00041- Update Yakima County Long Range Plans for Solid
& Moderate Risk Wastes
i - - - 1 ear - Erickson, - - -- —_- - - - - -- -
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Environmental Review —
Determination of Non Significance for the Update ofYakima County's Long Range Plans for ,
Solid & Moderate Risk Wastes.
The ranges of impacts to be analyzed in an initial SEPA environmental checklist are to be direct,
indirect and cumulative effects caused by the proposal /project; The majority of the responses
given by the Yakima County Solid Waste Program to the questions asked in the SEPA document
were listed as non applicable. The vague ness or non responsiveness in addressing the questions
raises several questions for the Yakama Nation. The following are our comments and concerns
to the proposed plans for solid and moderate risk wastes.
1. The proposed Solid Waste Management Plan is a 20 year planning document. In
question seven it is asked if there are plans for future additions, expansion or further
activity related to or connected to this proposal. There is not an adequate answer to this
question. The Plan states that within the next six years, expenditures are expected to
exceed $12,000,000` in project developments. Wherein the SEPA document are those
developments diseussed and what considerations were given to the direct and indirect
impacts to the environment of these planned activities?
2.. The answer to question 11 states that most of the recommendations from the solid waste
management plan represent refinements to existing policies and programs. In review of
the Yakima County's Long Range Plans for Solid and Moderate Risk Waste there are
several substantial changes not mere refinements to current solid waste practices, the
designation of Cheyne Landfill as a regional landfill is an example. Yet cumulative
III impacts were dismissed as non applicable.
Post. Office•Box 151, Port Road, 7'opptnish, WA 98948 (509) 865 - 5121
Dtt- —eoJy id ;DO YHK 1 I'IH LUUN I T t'UtiStkV 1 D(4
Confederated Tribes and Bands . Established by the
11l 11 nIJ 1M1.'•
Treaty of Jane 9, of the Yakarna Nation 40
p{ATY OF
3. Cheyne Landfill is planned to become the regional landfill for Yakima County. This is a
substantial change in how waste is currently managed in Yakima County.. What
environmental safeguards will be in place to accommodate the jump in tonnage from
35,000 ton per year to 300,000 tons a year The SEPA document has not appropriately
addressed the cumulative effects of the increase in traffic or the daily transporting of large
volumes .ofwaste, What infrastructure is currently available or will need to be
constructed, .such as bridges, roads to and from the Terrace Heights landfill and all the
surrounding communities who will use Cheyne as their final disposal option? What are
the direct and indirect impacts of this change?
4. What controls are in place to address spills, especially those that can affect the Yakima
River? How are the cumulative effects to be measured?
5. Cheyne Landfill is unlined, If Cheyne is to become a regional landfill what
environmental precautions the volume =of- waste_ accepted at the site is
significantly increased? What environmental assurances is the County proposing to the
community to proceed with an unlined landfill? What are the cumulative effects of an
unlined landfill?
•
•
6. With Cheyne being proposed as the regional landfill for the county, how will increases
green house gases be offset? Reductions in GHG are not addressed in the application. •
7. Where is the future water supply coming from to accommodate the growth and
expansion?
8. Question 14 on the SEPA Environmental Review addresses questions regarding historic
and cultural preservation. Cheyne Landfill while not on the Yakama Reservation resides
in the ceded areas, In 2007, KW. Beck, the environmental consultant for the Cheyne
Landfill expansion, retained Historical Research Associates, Inc. to conduct a cultural
resource assessment for the Cheyne expansion; HRA recommended that Yakima
County consult with Yakama Nation about the site's potential eligibility for inclusion in
the NRHPTW1 -1R tinder Criterion D owing to the site's research potential and ability to
yield information important in prehistory. The response given to question 14 a — c was
N /A. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control impact to this site?
9. The Yakama Nation is a party of interest in.the County's management of solid waste and
the expansion of the Cheyne Landfill. Though Cheyne Landfill resides off reservation it is
located in the tribal ceded area and the transporting of waste will require utilizing roads
that border the Yakama Reservation and cross the Yakima River: The entire County's
proposed solid waste activity is planned to occur in the Yalcaina Nation's sphere of
influence. However, the Yakama Nation has been excluded as an active participant in the
Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory Committee:
Post Office Box 151, Fort Road, Toppcnlsh, WA 98948 (509) 865-5121
DEC -30 -2009 12 :51 YRKIMA COUNTY PUBSERU 1 5l.1 tY4 22 _51 r.Obilib
°'" " `,:=.,* Confederated Tribes and Bands Established by the
0 * o the Yakama Nation Treaty of June.9,1855
or
* 1
* •
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on SEPA Environmental Review. We are
formally requesting that we receive a staff report and future notices regarding the status of the
county's solid waste management plan.
Sincerely,
/2.,-.L.,, 6.7„.4-Z
Derald Ortloff
"Yakama Nation
- — -- - Facility Management — -- -- —
509- 865 -5121 x 5453
•
• .
•
.,
ill .. ,
Post Office Box 151, Fort Road, Toppcni$h, WA 98948 (509) 865 -5121
TOTAL P.06